Retour sur la matière du sens à l’ére de la production digitale
Sonesson, Göran LU
(2004)
In Visio
9(1-2).
p.215-234
- Abstract
- The task of the present study is to establish the useful of the distinction between plastic language and iconic language, as introduced by Floch and the Groupe µ, with the proviso that it has to be changed in a number of ways. To begin with, we should not talk about iconic language, but rather about a pictorial one, because iconicity is a much broader concept, and just as probably may found on the side of plasticity as on that of pictorality. In the second place, there is not much point in making the distinction, if, as Floch certainly suggests, and, at least some of time, also the Groupe µ, the content of plastic language is redundant in comparison with the pictorial one. Finally, it is not possible to identify plasticity with the... (More)
- The task of the present study is to establish the useful of the distinction between plastic language and iconic language, as introduced by Floch and the Groupe µ, with the proviso that it has to be changed in a number of ways. To begin with, we should not talk about iconic language, but rather about a pictorial one, because iconicity is a much broader concept, and just as probably may found on the side of plasticity as on that of pictorality. In the second place, there is not much point in making the distinction, if, as Floch certainly suggests, and, at least some of time, also the Groupe µ, the content of plastic language is redundant in comparison with the pictorial one. Finally, it is not possible to identify plasticity with the aesthetic function, with is not even a sign function, but rather a thematic operation. We also broaches a few further issues which may constitute problems for the theory of plastic language; the materiality, which is a thematic operation, though it does not necessarily coincide with the aesthetic function; and, at the other extreme, the virtuality of the computer image, the surface of which seems impossible to pinpoint, and whose evasiveness is already anticipated by the hologram, and even by the slide. (Less)
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Abstract in French
Le but de l’étude présente est de démontrer que la distinction entre le langage plastique et le langage iconique, introduite par Floch et Groupe µ, reste utile, à condition de la faire subir une série de modifications : d’abord, il ne faut pas parler du langage iconique, mais du langage pictural, parce que l’iconicité peut très se retrouver aussi bien du côté plastique. Ensuite, la distinction perd son intérêt, si, comme le suppose Floch, et peut-être parfois Groupe µ, la couche plastique est redondante par rapport à la couche picturale. Il faut donc chercher les significations plastiques par d’autres voies. Finalement, la plasticité ne peut pas être identifiée avec la fonction esthétique, qui n’est même... (More) - Abstract in French
Le but de l’étude présente est de démontrer que la distinction entre le langage plastique et le langage iconique, introduite par Floch et Groupe µ, reste utile, à condition de la faire subir une série de modifications : d’abord, il ne faut pas parler du langage iconique, mais du langage pictural, parce que l’iconicité peut très se retrouver aussi bien du côté plastique. Ensuite, la distinction perd son intérêt, si, comme le suppose Floch, et peut-être parfois Groupe µ, la couche plastique est redondante par rapport à la couche picturale. Il faut donc chercher les significations plastiques par d’autres voies. Finalement, la plasticité ne peut pas être identifiée avec la fonction esthétique, qui n’est même pas une fonction de signe, mais une opération thématique. Pour terminer, nous signalons quelques autres problèmes auxquels la théorie doit faire face : la matérialité de l’œuvre d’art, qui est une opération thématique, sans nécessairement coïncider avec la fonction esthétique; et, à l’autre extrême, la virtualité de l’image de l’ordinateur, dont la surface semble introuvable, et dont l’évasivité semble déjà préfigurée par l'hologramme, voire la diapositive. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/540306
- author
- Sonesson, Göran
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2004
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- aesthetic function, autonomy, iconicity, pictorial language, pictorial semiotics, plastic language
- in
- Visio
- volume
- 9
- issue
- 1-2
- pages
- 215 - 234
- publisher
- Association internationale de sémiotique visuelle
- ISSN
- 1026-8340
- language
- French
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 43983af8-d518-431a-95a3-ec8ecbadf955 (old id 540306)
- alternative location
- http://www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/pdf/Retour.pdf
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 15:19:02
- date last changed
- 2019-06-22 02:19:29
@article{43983af8-d518-431a-95a3-ec8ecbadf955,
abstract = {{The task of the present study is to establish the useful of the distinction between plastic language and iconic language, as introduced by Floch and the Groupe µ, with the proviso that it has to be changed in a number of ways. To begin with, we should not talk about iconic language, but rather about a pictorial one, because iconicity is a much broader concept, and just as probably may found on the side of plasticity as on that of pictorality. In the second place, there is not much point in making the distinction, if, as Floch certainly suggests, and, at least some of time, also the Groupe µ, the content of plastic language is redundant in comparison with the pictorial one. Finally, it is not possible to identify plasticity with the aesthetic function, with is not even a sign function, but rather a thematic operation. We also broaches a few further issues which may constitute problems for the theory of plastic language; the materiality, which is a thematic operation, though it does not necessarily coincide with the aesthetic function; and, at the other extreme, the virtuality of the computer image, the surface of which seems impossible to pinpoint, and whose evasiveness is already anticipated by the hologram, and even by the slide.}},
author = {{Sonesson, Göran}},
issn = {{1026-8340}},
keywords = {{aesthetic function; autonomy; iconicity; pictorial language; pictorial semiotics; plastic language}},
language = {{fre}},
number = {{1-2}},
pages = {{215--234}},
publisher = {{Association internationale de sémiotique visuelle}},
series = {{Visio}},
title = {{Retour sur la matière du sens à l’ére de la production digitale}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/4365684/626044.pdf}},
volume = {{9}},
year = {{2004}},
}